Greetings Nazort,
quote:
Your original question was not how I could verify that the Bible can be treated as a history book, but proof for the existence of Jesus. I gave you the Bible.
Really?
The Bible consists of many books -
* the OT, which says nothing about Jesus
* the NT epistles, which talk of the Risen Christ, a heavenly being
* the Gospels, conflicting stories which arose in 2nd century
What makes YOU think this is proof for the existance of Jesus?
quote:
OK. Why can the Bible be treated as a history book? Here is a reason. The people who wrote it had nothing to gain by it, so why would they do it if it were not true?
Arrant nonsense.
You have NO IDEA why the authors wrote, or what they gained, or what they hoped to gain. The Gospels are classified under RELIGION, not history - only faithful apologists think they are history.
quote:
Would they not recant under tortue if it were not true?
Rubbish.
There is NO evidence that any Gospel author believed hs work to be true history.
There is NO evidence any Gospel author was tortured to recant - NONE. If YOU believe there is, please produce the evidence (no, not some opinions of later faithful.)
quote:
Here is another. This is about the historical accuracy of Luke as a historian. In Luke 3:1 he mentions Lysanias as being the tetrarch of Abilene in about A.D. 27. For many years, people thought that Luke didn't know what he saying writing about, because Lysanius was not a tetrarch - he was the ruler of the Chalcis half a centry earlier.
However, later an incrsiption was found from the reign of Tiberius (A.D. 14 to 37) which named Lysanius as tetrarch in Abila near Damascus, jsut as Luke had written. The reason is that there were two people named Lysanius - Luke knew what he was talking about.
So what?
The Harry Potter books include real places and people - so according to you, they are TRUE stories !
quote:
If someone told me they saw and touched goblins, etc, I would ask them questions to see how reliable they were. I would seek information regarding their mental state at the time, if they have any motives for making these claims, and the environmental conditions in which they had this sighting. I encourage you to ask these questions about the Bible.
Many of us here HAVE studied those very questions, but it appears you have not.
The chronology of Christian documents shows that the Gospels and their contents do not enter Christian history until mid 2nd century.
See my chronology here -
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
And a chart summarising who knew what, when :
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
Consider the first dozen books of Christianity, in order as best I can (dates acccording to scholars, not traditional church legends) -
(Paul 50s)
Hebrews (60s)
Colossians (70s)
James (80s)
1 John (80s)
2 Thessalonians (80s)
Ephesians (90s)
1 Peter (90s)
Revelation (90s)
Clement (90s)
Jude (100s)
Didakhe (100s)
2 John (120s)
3 John (120s)
None of these first writings shows knowledge of the Ministry (or the Gospels or the Evangelists) - no miracles, no Sermon, no healings, no triumphal entry, no birth stories, no Joseph, no Mary, no Pilate, no Bethlehem, no Calvary, no trial, no empty tomb story !
(It's true there ARE a few vague spiritual comments about the Risen Christ which are now interpreted to refer to Gospel events, but none of them are clear.)
Gospel evolution
Mention of some Gospel elements begins in early-mid 2nd century - e.g. Ignatius, the Pastorals, Barnabas.
The
first mention of proto-Gospels is from about the
130s with Papias - he refers to writings by Mark and Matthew which are not quite like our moden Gospels. He considered these writings of little value. Eusebius considered Papias was not very smart (he did believe all sorts of other nonsense.)
The
first evidence for a Gospel is from Marcion about 142CE - his Gospel is now lost, but we know it -
* was called just "the Gospel"
* did NOT have the genealogies of Jesus
* did NOT call Jesus son-of-David (several early Christians denied Jesus was son of David)
The
first written quotations of Gospel-like writings is from Justin in about 150 - he refers to
"memoirs of the apostles" which are also
"called Gospels". He does NOT name or number the Gospels. He does give many quotes - some match our modern Gospels, some do not.
The
first evidence for FOUR Gospels being important is possibly from Tatian's "diaTessaron" ((Harmony) From Four) dated perhaps
172CE.
The first Christian to NAME the four Gospels was Irenaeus in the 180s.
Aristides dates the Gospel
Interestingly, one Christian church father Aristides refers to
"...the Gospel as it is called, which (has been) preached a short time among them".
This tells us that in his day -
* the Gospel was un-named,
* the Gospel had only been preached "a short time".
Aristides wrote 138-161CE (we can tell because he named the Roman emperor), so this is further evidence that the Gospels were still un-named and fairly new in mid 2nd century.
Summary
The trajectory is as follows -
* 1st century - no Gospels, no Evangelists known
* early 2nd century - first mentions of Gospels, Evangelists
* c.142 - first Gospel published (Marcion)
* mid 2nd century - first quotes of Gospel-like material
* c.172 - Gospels Numbered as Four.
* c.180 - first Naming of the Four Gospels.
* c.200 - first significant MSS of Gospels (e.g. P75)
The Gospels developed over time, probably starting from early 2nd century, growing and changing thru the mid 2nd century, to finally crystalize in late 2nd century. Some changes still occured as late as 4th century (e.g. the Trinity.)
But there is no evidence that ANY 1st Century Christian knew ANYTHING about the Ministry of Jesus. The Oral Tradition is as legendary as the Gospels.
Iasion
™ Version 4.2
